Facts
The appellant [X.] was imposed a complete, temporally unrestricted ban on keeping animals by the cantonal veterinarian of the Urkantons on 30 June 2011. The appellant lodged an objection against this ruling, which was rejected by the cantonal veterinarian. Subsequently, the appellant lodged an appeal with the Government Council of the Canton of Uri, which rejected it on 22 November 2011. A further appeal to the High Court of the Canton of Uri was unsuccessful. The appellant then requested the Federal Court to overturn the judgment of the High Court and instead to order a weekly control over the keeping of animals and the requirements of the cantonal veterinarian or to refer the matter back to the lower court for a new evidentiary proceeding.
The lower court had established that the appellant had repeatedly and seriously violated animal protection legislation and that he was incapable of keeping animals. The appellant complained of a violation of the right to be heard and the right to a fair trial, as the cantonal veterinarian had contacted the lower court during the pending proceedings and the lower court had relied heavily on the reports of the cantonal veterinarian.
Considerations
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, as the lower court had not violated the right to be heard or the right to a fair trial. The contact between the cantonal veterinarian and the lower court during the pending proceedings was admissible, as it concerned an inquiry about the proceedings. The lower court had also not acted arbitrarily in relying on the reports of the cantonal veterinarian.
The Federal Court found that the lower court had rightly concluded that the appellant was incapable of keeping animals, as he had repeatedly and seriously violated animal protection…